Sunday, July 5, 2020

The Morality Police

Home Forums Community The Morality Police

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47040
    boans
    Participant

    I have been watching with interest developments in Iraq and Syria, and the attempts to establish an Islamic State. The situation is complex and I’m not going to try and debunk many of the myths presented in the mainstream media. A consequence of a victory for I.S. would be the implementation of Sharia Law within this new State.

    Sharia law is a system developed from the Qur’an and the Hadiths. What many Westerners fail to comprehend is that it is a combination of both criminal and moral codes of conduct. A couple of examples. It is a crime to kill another Muslim according to the teachings in the Qur’an, and the punishment is death by beheading. Not dissimilar to our laws, if you kill someone, then you will either be locked up for a long time, or in some cases executed. One difference worth noting is that in Western societies this tends to be done away from the public view, whereas in places like Saudi Arabia, they administer the punishment in public places (eg Chop square in Jedda).

    The moral code can be seen in such areas as dressing appropriately in public places. Women are in places like Afghanistan required to wear a Burrkah, and men must be covered from the navel to below the knees. This dress standard is also in the Qur’an, and the punishment for not abiding by this code is also described. It is a little more complicated than this, and is interpreted differently in different societies. My main point is that the criminal and moral codes are intricately interwoven.

    In Western democracies the State has separated from the Church and we have a criminal system to deal with those who commit offenses. What is worthy of note is that Western societies appear to not impose a moral code on their citizens. All equal before the law, despite your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc (See the Equal Opportunities Act in particular for this).

    Recognising that providing a group of people powers to subject people to incarceration and ‘treatment’ without their consent, the removal of their children etc, our legislators in their wisdom have written certain protections into various laws. I place the term treatment in quotes because it is debatable that what is being done constitutes treatment at all (See UN Special Rapporteur on tortures comments regarding psychiatric treatments)

    So, with regards the Mental Health Act in my State they define what is and is not a mental illness. I think it is worth quoting the whole section here.

    4 . Mental illness, defined

    (1) For the purposes of this Act a person has a mental illness if the person suffers from a disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception, orientation or memory that impairs judgment or behaviour to a significant extent.

    (2) However a person does not have a mental illness by reason only of one or more of the following, that is, that the person —

    (a) holds, or refuses to hold, a particular religious, philosophical, or political belief or opinion;

    (b) is sexually promiscuous, or has a particular sexual preference;

    (c) engages in immoral or indecent conduct;

    (d) has an intellectual disability;

    (e) takes drugs or alcohol;

    (f) demonstrates anti-social behaviour.

    So we can see that the aim of the Act here is to ensure that people are not subjected to the trauma of being deprived of their liberty and ‘treated’ merely because the Psychiatrist or mental health worker believes that homosexuality or other thoughts or behaviour THEY deem immoral should be ‘treated’.

    Those familiar with the history of Psychiatry will notice a number of additions to this definition of what is not a mental illness. The ‘treatment’ for political beliefs etc in NSDP Germany being Zyklon B, and more recently the ‘treatment’ for homosexuality being Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT) and chemical castration. (for more on this see the CCHR videos on the hisory of psychiatry)

    What is known is that this is a profession that can be used to subject those deemed as deviant within a society to brutal and in some cases deadly ‘treatments’. But with protections like the above written into our Mental Health Acts it is unlikely to occur. We have systems in place to ensure that citizens are protected from such abusive practices, and we live in a society that values freedom and liberty.

    What we can see from this is that whilst the Western moral code is reflected in the legal system, matters such as sexual orientation, promiscuity, political beliefs etc are not considered crimes, nor are they to be considered an illness that requires treatment. This should in practice work quite well. If I were a black homosexual man who believed in the writings of Karl Marx I could still attend a psychiatrist and expect to have my mental health issues dealt with without being subjected to coercion and force to impose the values of the psychiatrist on me. I would expect the psychiatrist as a professional to put aside any religious or moral beliefs they had on these issues and deal with me as a human being.

    I would like at this point to describe what was communicated to me by a long term patient, and her introduction to forced psychiatry. It must be understood that this is only one side of the story (I’m sure mental health services have their too). I am a fairly good judge of character, and believe that what was described to me by this person to be the truth.

    This young lady became a friend of mine when I first went into hospital voluntarily. She heard me arguing with a nurse about access to an extra pillow, and gave me some advice about how to ‘work the system’. She was obviously intelligent, and had a good knowledge of how things worked around the hospital. Over the next 6 months we had long conversations about various topics, so her story was revealed to me in pieces.

    What became apparent was that she came from a wealthy background, and had attended a private Catholic school. After leaving home she began spending nights on the internet in chat rooms and playing games. Her home was a mess as a result of not cleaning regularly, and she had a number of casual relationships with some young men. This created some conflict between her and her mother. This was not the life that her mother wanted for her, and the daughter was as far as she was concerned free to live as she pleased.

    Mother calls Mental Health Services.

    An Authorised Mental Health Practitioner (AMHP) attends her home to assess her state of mental health. Mother has raised concerns, and if he does nothing he may be liable should anything occur. The home is a mess, and she admits to having a number of casual relationships. Not having any real evidence of a mental illness, he misrepresents matters on the forms to force the young lady into attending the hospital for an examination by a psychiatrist. This of course angers this independent young lady, who is now placed into a police van and taken to the hospital and detained in an environment similar to a prison. This petit young lady is in a ward with other people who have some serious problems, some of them prone to violence. Angry, afraid and stressed, she is held for three days before being examined by a psychiatrist. What the psychiatrist sees is a person who appears to be in quite a state. What isn’t so obvious is that it is the treatment that she has been subjected to for the last three days which has caused this state.

    The label is applied, drugs are prescribed, and she is detained for further observation. A reaction to the drugs, anger spills over onto staff and the cycle begins. Examined by a psychiatrist for ten minutes a week, and her negative reactions to both the drugs and being incarcerated with other more severely ill people is looking a lot like the evidence required to make the label of mental illness sick now. Further drugs are prescribed to counteract the negative effects of the first round and more confusion and illness symptoms appear.

    Ten years later, after numerous voluntary and involuntary admissions, different cocktails of drugs by different psychiatrist, this young ladies life is an absolute mess. Overweight, shaking from the medications to a point where she can hardly hold a cup, and having great difficulty maintaining a home and any relationships with friends and family. We still go out and have lunch occasionally and discuss developments in the area of mental health, though I cry when I am alone over what has been done to this beautiful young woman.

    So what went on here? Mother and daughter in a conflict over moral values. Enter the Morality Police (Mental Health Services). There is a cultural belief within this system that they can use the system to enforce moral standards on those deemed to be lacking in this area. In this situation the young lady should clean her home to her mothers standard, and should engage in a long term relationship with a young man approved by her mother. Failure to comply with this moral code will result in incarceration and drugging until she does comply. Her independent nature refused to accept this, and so she fought. This results in the system merely responding with further sanctions and brutality to ensure compliance. The mother has effectively thrown the daughter into quicksand.

    This was never the intention of those who wrote our Mental Health Act. It was not to be used as a tool to enforce compliance to a moral code of conduct set arbitrarily by others. That is obvious when one reads the definition of what a mental illness is and is not. Though it could be used in this manner.

    It is my belief that this is what is occurring particularly when young people come into conflict with parents. Mental health workers are drawing people who are not mentally ill into the system and using it to enforce compliance with the moral code set by the parents. This is not the only area where this is being done, but one that stands out the most.

    Rather than being a system set up to deal with some people who have serious issues it is being used to enforce moral standards that are not covered by the law, and in fact are specifically protected by our laws. This young lady had a right to live in a manner she saw fit, not be subjected to a controlling mother who was prepared to use the mechanism of the state to enforce her values. And further, a group of professionals quite prepared to assist in this process.

    I feel that this should be examined further by those with the power to do so, and perhaps get Mental Health Services back on track, and stop them from acting as the moral police of our community. Rather than throwing people into the quicksand of the mental health system for minor infractions of those who hold high moral standards, we begin to observe the rights of people to choose how they live their own lives.

    What were these professionals actually treating? I would ask that it is considered that the reason they have failed for the last ten years to ‘cure’ this young woman is because not cleaning your house, and ‘promiscuity’ is not a mental illness. Read the definition in the Act.

    Perhaps we can change the name from Mental Health Services to Moral Hygiene Services. And it all looks like real medicine.

    So when you see the moral police in Iran enforcing sharia on people, recognise that the same is being done in our societies. In Muslim societies these ‘treatments’ are delivered publicly, in Western societies we hide them away behind locked doors.

    Why do we do this? I do not believe it would be possible to maintain the fiction that we are a free and just society if these ‘treatments’ were done within the public gaze. The public can not be informed that we have this system that is being used to enforce a moral code that is not specified in our laws, and in fact is specifically denied by the law.

    Hence we see the revulsion when public beheadings or mass hangings are carried out in Muslim societies and published in our media. And whilst we may disagree with the punishment severity, or the reasons for the punishments at least the public are aware of the moral codes that are being enforced. Hiding the punishment for not cleaning ones home, and ‘promiscuity’ away in mental institutions meant that my friend was not aware that this was punishable. Her resistance merely resulted in further punishment.

    #47044
    boans
    Participant

    Just watched this documentary about the history of capital punishment.

    Capital Punishment over the Years

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4llHNTQQp8

    Some points.

    18:00 –
    Debates arise about the issue of public hangings among Victorians. Problem is resolved by using the new prisons to hide executions from the public gaze. 1868 the last public hanging occurs.

    22:30 –
    The Enlightenment. Punishment should be proportional to the crime. The loss of life is thus transformed into a loss of liberty. Loss of liberty IS a punishment.

    In the last minute of the video is a brief description of what actually constitutes punishment. The etiology of the term is in pain. To constitute punishment there must be pain involved.

    Some issues raised for me.

    Forced psychiatry involves a deprivation of liberty. Where is the pain involved in being deprived of ones liberty? If there is no pain involved why then are terms of imprisonment given for criminal offenses? Is a psychological pain inflicted by depriving an individual of their liberty? Is there pain involved with taking certain drugs?

    It is argued in the video that by moving hangings from public arenas and hiding them in the new prisons that this extended the amount of time the practice continued. Is the same true of hiding the ‘treatment’ of those deemed mentally ill from public view? Is it this that will extend the amount of time that this practice will continue? If so, everything should be done to bring video evidence to public attention.

    Forced psychiatry causes both physical and psychological pain, and is therefore punishment where no crime has been committed by individuals. The State, in order to continue this practice of punishing individuals where no crime has been committed will need to continue to hide the practices from the public.

    The new technologies have provided an opportunity to change this. I propose a debate about gathering video evidence that could be useful in bringing these hidden abuses to the attention of the public.

    Patients and ex patients are at a distinct advantage here. Knowledge of the system and where and when abuses are likely to occur is of great value. Methods of obtaining recording devices within these confines should not be difficult to overcome. A new Rosenhan experiment perhaps??

    #47054
    Copy_cat
    Participant

    The establishment of a psychiatric state.

    The DSM-5 is the Atheist’s Moral Code, the psychiatrist’s Bible explained.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZVZbm9e7c

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Copy_cat.
    • This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Copy_cat.
    #47059
    boans
    Participant

    Good video Copy_cat. Gets at what I’m trying to say very well.

    1:15 “In society you violate or break a law you get thrown in jail”. Not if your a psychiatrist lol. As a psychiatrist if you violate or break the law, someone comes and tells you that they have covered the evidence for you, and explains how to not get caught.

    What I would take issue with is at about 4:15.

    The explanation about the differences between the criminal system and psychiatric system. The young lady says that medication, ECT, and incarceration is based on opinion. This is correct, though only partly. One needs to examine this in the context of any legislation. These ‘opinions’ must be formed on the basis of “facts” that constitute “reasonable grounds”. This tends to be hidden to divert any complaints about the behaviour of doctors.

    For example with police they form an opinion that a person has committed an offense and should be charged. But they are required to complete a statement of facts that was the basis of that opinion.

    As a police officer I stop a car and smell alcohol. I “suspect on reasonable grounds” that the driver is intoxicated. I therefore use the breathalyser and test them. The reading is above the lawful limit, and I therefore charge them. My suspicion or opinion is confirmed by the facts.

    The same should be true with mental health. As a mental health worker I am called to examine a person. I “suspect on reasonable grounds” that they have a mental illness that requires treatment. My suspicion or opinion should be based on observed facts, ie incoherent rambling, naked and masturbating on the roof, etc. Thus the suspicion or opinion can be checked against the stated observed facts. Was it reasonable given these facts to form that opinion.

    This is where mental health workers have a tendency to commit a little bit of fraud. Rather than stating what they actually observed, they put down what they are told and pretend that they actually saw it. Police do it as well, on a regular basis.

    It’s a form of planting evidence on someone.

    So I say I saw you taking drugs to a police officer, and you deny it. Police officer says HE saw you taking drugs and charges you because he believes me. In court its your word against a police officer who is quite prepared to commit an act of perjury. What do you reckon the outcome might be? You are therefore convicted on the basis of a police officers opinion that you committed an offense.

    Not as clear as I should be but I’m writing something about this whole corrupt practice at the moment. Lots of people unaware that those opinions can and should be challenged based on the “reasonable grounds” standards.

    #47227
    TheSystemIsBroken
    Participant

    I have often referred to the MH system as the “morality police.” I once saw a psychiatrist who would accusingly assert that I “start trouble for my family” by confronting them about abusive acts that took place. Another decided that I was “bipolar” because, as she so eloquently put it, “You’ve never been manic and you’re usually just depressed, but sometimes, you get angry.” Well, yes, I get angry when someone who’s supposed to be helping me blames me for having been sexually assaulted. If that’s a disease, then I must be quite ill.

    #47272
    uprising
    Participant

    Hey boans, that original post is a strong essay!

    #47299
    boans
    Participant

    Thanks uprising, there are times when I hope someone with writing skills will pick up on this stuff and run with it.

    I wanted to say to you that I saw your commemt in the article about suicide increasing with increased psychiatric intervention. That was a truth that needed saying, but was one I was afraid to say. I feel really sorry for that lady and have held back from saying some things that probably should be said. I feel a lot of empathy for her son, and hope that they cycle they are all trapped in is resolved before it ends in disaster.

    On the issue of morality police I saw a documemtary called The Third Jihad. There is a section where a woman in Iran is being apprehended for breaching the dress code. Looked a lot like a menatl health intervention to me. The doco itself isn’t really worth the effort but that section where they deal with the implementation of sharia might be a good addition to what I’m trying to get at above.

    I also saw a current affairs program about a guy in prison in Saudi on charges of fraud. The program itself was n’t relevant, but he spoke about another Westerner who was in prison with him for wearing a t shirt with the sillouette of a naked woman on it. The police there will act on a complaint for such breaches of the moral code.

    Maybe post the link and times of the section a little later.

    Regards

    #47349
    boans
    Participant

    I just remembered this Journal Article By Dr Moncrieff, Psychiatric Diagnosis as a Political Device.

    http://www.psychiatry.freeuk.com/Jodiagnosis.pdf

    Some great references and analysis of the works of Coulter and Ingelby.

    From the abstract;

    “in contrast to the idea that diagnosis should determine treatment, diagnoses in psychiatry are applied to justify predetermined social responses, designed to control and contain disturbed behaviour and provide care for dependents. Hence psychiatric diagnosis functions as a political device employed to legitimate activities that might otherwise be contested”

    I’d forgotten how good this article was. A clear demonstration that the system can, and is, put to use to deal with moral breaches that do not warrant intervention by the criminal system.

    Have a problem with your teenager? Mental health services groom the information to make it appear as if there is an illness, and then go about treating that illness. Teenager is returned with the undesired behaviours removed. “Don’t worry about the fact he is dribbling and seems like a zombie, that’s what we in the profession call side effects, and we will eventually find the right medication for that. Give it a week and see if he is still playing that Marilyn Manson music really loud, bet you we cured him of that”. Not being capable of figuring out how to work the CD player anymore …..

    I need to print out Dr Moncrieffs article and go through it with my highlighter and will post a few of the relevant quotes. I know, old school methods lol.

    What interests me is that when you examine the history of “verballing” in the criminal system, and look at what is occurring in the mental health field with the fabrication of illnesses to ‘treat’ these moral breaches, is that when activists started to inform the public of the way it was being done, they were threatened out of existence by the courts. Informing people of how police officers were committing acts of fraud to ensure convictions for crimes where no evidence existed was seen as undermining the public image of the police.

    Kennedy’s Royal Commission was clear about the consequences of this type of behaviour (and I can give reference if required). He said that the practice of “verballing” was highly likely to result in wrongful convictions, and that police were put in a position where they would need to perjure themselves if the charges were contested.

    In the mental health system the practice of “verballing” a diagnosis can also have devastating effects on individuals who do not require ‘treatment’, particularly if doctors are under pressure to ‘process’ large numbers of individuals. I know I was told that one Psychiatrist was expected to attend to 40 patients a day.

    So for example in my case, the Community Nurse makes it sound like I have an illness by taking what he was told and making it appear as if he has made valid observations of an illness (an act of fraud to meet the requirements of the Act). The Doctor, believing that the Community Nurse has made these observations then accepts that whilst he hasn’t seen any evidence of illness, the CN has, so he medicates. The Doctor would assume that the CN wouldn’t commit an offense by filling out a false declaration.

    This is precisely the way that people are falsely convicted of crimes in the criminal system. Difference being that in the criminal system you might only get prison for a short time, in the mental health system (as is shown by the case I described above) you might find that you will spend a decade on medications and be repeatedly incarcerated for the effects caused by the initial drugging, and any anger one might display over being treated in such a manner is put down as evidence of the illness.

    #47366
    uprising
    Participant

    Thanks uprising, there are times when I hope someone with writing skills will pick up on this stuff and run with it.

    I wanted to say to you that I saw your commemt in the article about suicide increasing with increased psychiatric intervention. That was a truth that needed saying, but was one I was afraid to say. I feel really sorry for that lady and have held back from saying some things that probably should be said. I feel a lot of empathy for her son, and hope that they cycle they are all trapped in is resolved before it ends in disaster.

    Well, I didn’t want to go on at length and risk embarrassing you, but I think it’s great as is. I think you have a gift for written communication.

    I really appreciate what you said about that comment, too, because I felt conflicted about writing that. It’s the truth and I also felt it needed to be said, but I didn’t want her to feel like I was kicking her when she’s down, because I do empathize. You’re absolutely right that it’s a cycle they are caught up in. When psychiatry is brought in to the family, everyone loses. And it’s also important to recognize when someone has been cast into the role of Identified Patient.

    #47386
    boans
    Participant

    Ah yes, Identified Patient.

    I view myself as a type of ‘control’ in a social experiment. What has happened to me is a measure of the damage that is done minus an illness. Three years of being suicidal and they claim they need to do this to check if someone is ill? I just find it beyond comprehension that anyone in that system could not be aware of what they do to a person BEFORE they even get to see a psychiatrist.

    There is a solution. The psychiatrist goes to the person suspected of having a mental illness, not have them brutalised by thugs and dumped in a cage before being examined. It would save lives and do so much less damage. One needs to understand though that this system is not about health care. It is presented as such, but once you have been drawn into it you realise that it’s about social control.

    I just wonder how many people find themselves waking up to this fact when it’s too late. The lady in the thread seems to understand what she is tied up in now, but has gone into it in ignorance. I’ve seen others too. My wife being one. It’s a trap laid by the state and medical establishment for unsuspecting people who are in distress.

    The mental health workers actually encourage the destruction of family’s by trying to get family members to act as their de facto spies. “We need information to help your loved one” …. and will destroy any remaining trust there is in the process.

    “A traveler journeys along a fine road. It has been strewn with traps. He falls into one. Do we say it is the fault of the traveler, or the scoundrel who laid the traps?” The Marquis de Sade. And he should know about mental asylums lol.

    I do worry that the lady may turn to police who will be ‘primed’ knowing that he has a history of admissions. It shows up on their system here. I noticed that after being detained by mental health the police turned up at my home ready for combat in Afghanistan. They wouldn’t have been aware that there was nothing wrong with me, only that they had transported me to the hospital. “Check your pistol is loaded boys”

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • The forum ‘Community’ is closed to new topics and replies.